Back

How can graph theory inform the dual-stream model of speech processing? a resting-state fMRI study of post-stroke aphasia

Zhu, H.; Fitzhugh, M. C.; Keator, L. M.; Johnson, L.; Rorden, C.; Bonilha, L.; Fridriksson, J.; Rogalsky, C.

2023-04-19 neuroscience
10.1101/2023.04.17.537216 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The dual-stream model of speech processing has been proposed to represent the cortical networks involved in speech comprehension and production. Although it is arguably the prominent neuroanatomical model of speech processing, it is not yet known if the dual-stream model represents actual intrinsic functional brain networks. Furthermore, it is unclear how disruptions after a stroke to the functional connectivity of the dual-stream models regions are related to specific types of speech production and comprehension impairments seen in aphasia. To address these questions, in the present study, we examined two independent resting-state fMRI datasets: (1) 28 neurotypical matched controls and (2) 28 chronic left-hemisphere stroke survivors with aphasia collected at another site. Structural MRI, as well as language and cognitive behavioral assessments, were collected. Using standard functional connectivity measures, we successfully identified an intrinsic resting-state network amongst the dual-stream models regions in the control group. We then used both standard functional connectivity analyses and graph theory approaches to determine how the functional connectivity of the dual-stream network differs in individuals with post-stroke aphasia, and how this connectivity may predict performance on clinical aphasia assessments. Our findings provide strong evidence that the dual-stream model is an intrinsic network as measured via resting-state MRI, and that weaker functional connectivity of the hub nodes of the dual-stream network defined by graph theory methods, but not overall average network connectivity, is weaker in the stroke group than in the control participants. Also, the functional connectivity of the hub nodes predicted specific types of impairments on clinical assessments. In particular, the relative strength of connectivity of the right hemispheres homologues of the left dorsal stream hubs to the left dorsal hubs versus right ventral stream hubs is a particularly strong predictor of post-stroke aphasia severity and symptomology.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.1%
2
Neurobiology of Language
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
3
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.9%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 23%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
5
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.2%
6
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
119 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
7
Neuropsychologia
77 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.6%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 45%
2.6%
9
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.6%
10
Brain
154 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
11
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.1%
12
Brain Connectivity
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
13
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
14
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 32%
1.7%
15
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
16
Brain Structure and Function
83 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
17
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
18
Cortex
102 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
19
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
20
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.0%
21
Cerebral Cortex
357 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
22
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 53%
0.9%
23
Neuroscience
88 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
24
Neurology
44 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Clinical Neurophysiology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
26
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 27%
0.6%
27
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
28
Brain Sciences
52 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%